Facts of the Case
George Eldridge, who had originally been deemed disabled due to chronic anxiety and back strain, was informed by letter that his disability status was ending and that his benefits would be terminated. Social Security Administration procedures provided for ample notification and an evidentiary hearing before a final determination was made, but Eldridge's benefits were cut off until that hearing could take place. Eldridge challenged the termination of his benefits without such a hearing.
Questions
Did the lack of an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of disability benefits violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Conclusions
-
No. In an 6-to-2 decision, the Court held that the initial termination of Eldridge's benefits without a hearing did not violate due process. The Court noted that due process was "flexible" and called for "such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." The Court found that there were numerous safeguards to prevents errors in making decisions to terminate disability benefits and argued that "[a]t some point the benefit or an additional safeguard to the individual affected by the administrative action and to society, in terms of increased assurance that the action is just, may be outweighed by the cost."
Courthouse Steps Preview: Culley v. Marshall
Which Test is it Anyway? Civil Asset Forfeiture and the Right to a Prompt Post-Seizure...
Carr v. Saul: Issue Exhaustion & Constitutional Adjudication
On March 3, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carr v. Saul—a case...
No Fly, No Buy (And No Due Process)
If you have been following the Democratic primaries or keeping up with President Obama’s recent...
Pleading, Discovery, and the Federal Rules: Exploring the Foundations of Modern Procedure
Engage Volume 12, Issue 3, November 2011
Note from the Editor: In December 2010, the Federalist Society heard from a number of...
